National
Kagan denounces ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
Supreme Court nominee calls gay ban ‘unwise, unjust’
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was questioned this week about her handling of issues related to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
The issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and a controversy over allowing the U.S. military to recruit on college campuses emerged as central concerns during U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings this week.
The issues emerged Tuesday during the second day of hearings for Kagan — who’s currently serving as U.S. solicitor general — in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was expected to continue throughout the week.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) directed pointed questions at Kagan about the views she expressed as dean of Harvard Law School over military recruitment on campus.
According to media reports, in October 2003 Kagan wrote in an e-mail to students that military recruiting on campus caused her “deep distress” and that she “abhor[s] the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy.”
In testimony, Kagan affirmed her opposition to the ban on open service as dean and said she still holds that belief.
“I have repeatedly said that I believe that the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy is unwise and unjust,” she said. “I believed it then and I believe it now.”
Kagan said as dean she tried to ensure military recruiters had “full and complete access” while she simultaneously tried to enforce Harvard’s non-discrimination policy that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.
She said she worked out a compromise as dean that enabled a veterans’ organization to sponsor military recruiters on campus as opposed to the U.S. military itself. Kagan noted that this policy was changed after the Defense Department voiced concerns about not having full access.
Sessions was critical of her efforts and cited examples of actions she took that he said raised doubts about her support for the U.S. military.
The ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sessions has voiced concerns about the Kagan nomination throughout the confirmation process and is a likely vote against seating her on the Supreme Court.
Sessions said Kagan participated in a campus protest and spoke out against the Solomon Amendment, which allows the U.S. government to withhold federal funding from universities if they restrict military recruitment on campus.
The senator cited a friend-of-the-court brief that Kagan signed as one of 40 Harvard professors in favor a U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2004 overturning the Solomon Amendment.
In response, Kagan characterized the brief as an argument that Harvard’s accommodation for military recruiters through a veterans’ group was consistent with the Solomon Amendment.
“We filed an amicus brief not attacking the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, but instead saying simply that Harvard policy complied with the Solomon Amendment,” she said.
Kagan noted that in the end, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the arguments presented by Harvard professors in a 2006 decision upholding the Solomon Amendment.
Sessions accused Kagan of engaging in unscrupulous activity at Harvard by instituting a new policy following the Third Circuit ruling and suggested she shouldn’t have issued a change because the Solomon Amendment remained in effect.
The senator said Kagan’s description of events was “unconnected to reality” and that he was “a little taken aback” by her remarks.
“I know what happened at Harvard,” he said. “I know you’ve been [an] outspoken leader against the military policy. I know you acted — without legal authority — to reverse Harvard’s policy to deny the military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States government with the loss of critical funds.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the Judiciary Committee, interrupted Sessions to allow Kagan to respond to Sessions’ remarks.
Noting her father was a military veteran, Kagan said she has “respect” for the military and “one of the great privileges” of her time at Harvard was working with students who were former service members or who wanted to enter the military.
Doug NeJaime, a gay law professor at Loyola Law School, said Kagan “took the position that we expected her to take” in response to Sessions’ questioning by explaining school policy on military recruitment.
“I don’t think this is huge issue because, I think, it’s very much in the mainstream of law schools’ decision-making around ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and the Solomon Amendment,” NeJaime said. “And so, I think she defended the position in a satisfactory way.”
NeJaime said Sessions was trying to make it seem that Kagan was trying to undermine the U.S. military during her tenure as dean, or prevent them having access to students.
“She made it very clear that that’s not what she was doing,” NeJaime said. “The military had access to the students, and students had access to the military, and she had great respect for the military.”
Kagan’s opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — which she articulated during her confirmation hearings — renews the question of whether she would have to recuse herself if confirmed and the issue came before the high court.
But NeJaime said he didn’t think such statements meant that Kagan wouldn’t be able to take part in a case on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“She’s been pretty clear about speaking about it as a political matter and as an ethical matter,” NeJaime said. “She thinks it’s a bad policy, but I don’t think that that means she can’t fairly adjudicate equal protection or due process claims raised by the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.”
Further questions arose about LGBT cases in which Kagan may have to recuse herself in light of Leahy’s questioning on what matters she believed she would have sit out if they came to the bench.
In response to Leahy’s questioning, Kagan said she would recuse herself in cases that came before the court if she had been a “counsel of record” in any state of the process for litigation.
“I think there are probably about 10 cases that are on the docket next year … in which I have been a counsel of record in a petition for certiorari” or played a similar role, she said.
During her tenure as solicitor general, the Justice Department issued several briefs in defense of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — as well as the Defense of Marriage Act — in response to legal challenges in federal courts.
But NeJaime said the briefs don’t represent Kagan acting as a counsel of record because they originated under the jurisdiction of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
“She’s in the solicitor general’s office whereas the papers filed in the DOMA cases have been coming from the Justice Department,” NeJaime said. “So she actually hasn’t been counsel of record on any cases implicating the Defense of Marriage Act, so I don’t see any problem there.”
NeJaime added this situation would also apply with respect to Justice Department’s response to legal challenges of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
National
White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting
‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’
The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.
Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.
“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members.
She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing.
Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.
This post will be updated as more details are announced.
Federal Government
Advocates push back on proposed FCC warning labels
New rating system public notice seeking comments issued on April 22
The Federal Communications Commission is considering a new rating system that would require a warning label to appear before any television content that includes LGBTQ characters.
On April 22, the FCC issued a public notice asking Americans to submit comments on whether the TV Oversight Management Board should create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender nonbinary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes.”
This proposed warning would appear before content, similar to warnings that explain a program contains sexual content, drug use, or violence — categories that Congress explicitly included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the grounds of obscenity and violence that some parents “believe is harmful to their children.”
The public notice says that “recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents.”
It goes on to say that not having a warning for trans and nonbinary people is “undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”
LGBT Tech is an organization that works to provide LGBTQ representation in mainstream media or entertainment. The group notes 81 percent of trans respondents it surveyed said these representations had a positive impact on them discovering or learning about their identity.
“These numbers reflect a basic truth: for many people, and especially young people, seeing LGBTQ+ lives represented in ordinary media is not harmful. It is formative, affirming, and often lifesaving.”
Since the public notice’s publication, more than 40 organizations have come out against the proposed alert.
GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis issued a statement in May on the proposal, highlighting what she described as a concerted effort by the Trump-Vance administration to other trans and nonbinary people.
“The FCC does not set TV ratings, but under this administration the FCC has repeatedly tried to control what Americans can see on their own televisions. This government overreach is dangerous and a threat to our community and our democracy,” Ellis said.
“LGBTQ+ people and their families deserve to see their lives represented in the media they watch. And media companies must have the freedom to create programming that appeals to their viewers and subscribers without interference from a government pursuing its own anti-LGBTQ+ political agenda.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson pointed out that this is an act of politically motivated policy, not one based on any rhyme or reason.
“LGBTQ+ stories matter and deserve to be told, seen, and heard,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration does not get to use the FCC to try and erase us simply because they want to pretend to live in a world where we don’t exist. This is a brazen form of political interference that will hurt the ability of all people to appreciate, understand, and learn about the world and people around them.”
Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, echoed Robinson’s concerns that this is attempted censorship for the sake of political gain.
“The FCC is cloaking itself in purported concern for parents in an attempt to censor content, intimidate industry, and silence depictions of our trans siblings and neighbors,” Dittmeier wrote. “The FCC is overstepping its authority to undermine the existing ratings system, which is well understood by parents and enjoys broad public support. The FCC’s presumption that it knows better does not reflect parents’ priorities and reeks of government overreach.”
PFLAG National Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez said this is federal government overreach into censorship — something the First Amendment protects against.
“The FCC has given us yet another example of what ‘small government’ means: small enough to fit in your living room; to interrupt family movie night; small enough to make home feel unsafe,” Sanchez said. “Parents and families with transgender loved ones in particular know too well how big government actions impact their families directly, because they feel those impacts before everyone else.”
This proposed warning follows a slew of other federal actions targeting trans people in America, including Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which mandated that only sex assigned at birth be used on federal government documents regardless of gender identity, as well as broad-based restrictions on gender-affirming care, particularly for trans minors.
National
Still marching: Rev. Troy Perry and the ongoing fight for liberation
MCC founder reflects on Pride’s beginning, ongoing power of radical representation
Long before tone-deaf Target swag and rainbow-scented hashtags lit up the very queer month of June, Rev. Troy Perry was helping the LGBTQ community create space where it did not yet exist, and he did so with little more than faith and perseverance. This Pride season, as communities around the world fight once again with rising attacks on LGBTQ rights and democratic freedoms, Perry returns to the movement he helped build for a conversation rooted not only in history but in survival. The unveiling of Steps to Liberation at Founders Metropolitan Community Church serves as an uplifting reminder that Pride is not just a parade but also serves as a commitment to continue to advocate for our community.
Joined by original rainbow flag co-creator Lynn Segerblom, Perry looks back on the legacy of the first Pride marches, the spiritual and political power of real representation, and why the rainbow flag still matters nearly fifty years after its creation. As Founders MCC transforms its front steps into a vibrant rainbow pathway, the symbolism feels especially timely — freedom is not a destination, it’s something communities continuously build together, step by step. In our interview, Perry speaks candidly on activism, faith, and his continued belief that even in difficult times, hope remains an unwavering act of resistance.
You’ve been at the forefront of LGBTQ history for decades. What does this moment, unveiling Steps to Liberation, mean for you? You’ve often spoken about visibility as an act of courage. Why is that still not only true but also essential today?
I will be 86 years old in another month. Not in the best of health and in a wheelchair, but still a LGBTQ activist at heart. I tell my husband, Phillip De Blieck, that I never thought I would live this long. He and I will be celebrating our 41st anniversary this year.
In the early days of our struggle for our liberation, I used to cut up and tell people there’s just nothing like a good demonstration to get my heart pumping. This is what I feel as we dedicate the Steps of Liberation! Another symbol of our freedom. We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re gonna fight to our last breath, to win all the rights that the colors on the steps represent.
When you think back to organizing the first Pride march in Los Angeles, what emotions or memories visit you?
Having the guts to follow through on our vow to hold a pride parade, no matter what! We did follow through and sued the city of Los Angeles for the right to hold that parade. We won! Thank God for the ACLU. The next thing I thought was, my God, look at all the people who have come out to be in the parade, and to watch it. I was also thankful that no one was hurt that day, and the pride I had of being a part of that demonstration.
How does this new installation reflect the spirit of those early days of activism?
The steps of liberation tell all who see it that we are still here and not afraid after 56 years have passed since our first Pride parade.
The theme of IDAHOBIT 2026 is “The Heart of Democracy.” In your view, how has the LGBTQ movement played its part in influencing our country’s democracy?
I think that most of us have played by the rules and use the cards dealt to us to make a difference in our democracy here in the USA. The LGBTQ community has changed so much in 56 years. Today, members of our community are serving in every political office in our country. We have gay and bisexual city council members, lesbian governors, and trans state legislators. We have a gay man who has run for president of the United States. The heart of democracy is a right given to all of us to work to change our country so that all of us are treated the same. Nothing more, nothing less!
You’ve often spoken about visibility as an act of courage. Why is that still not only true but also essential today?
I tell groups of young LGBTQ people to be yourself. Flaunt it! Coming out of the closet is the best thing you can do. Whether you come out fast or slow, just come out. If you are going to do it, now is the time. I am so proud of young people who are using the Internet, TikTok, and YouTube to make a difference for us. Your siblings are looking for you!
What do you hope someone feels the first time they walk up the Rainbow Steps?
God, does this feel good! Why didn’t I do this a long time ago?
How has faith intersected with activism in your life?
This is my testimony. Most of my relatives would tell you that I have been deeply spiritual all my life. I have had the opportunity to live a very interesting life. I started preaching when I was 13 years old. I was licensed to preach in the Southern Baptist church at age 15. I married heterosexually at age 18. I started pastoring my first church at age 19. I am the father of two children. I am a Vietnam-era veteran. I was divorced at age 26 and founded Metropolitan Community Church at age 28. I have been slapped in the face, spat on, had some people try to murder me, and cursed by some throughout my life, all because I dare call myself a clergyman as a gay man. Has it been worth it? Absolutely. I would not change my life for anything. I try to always keep my faith intact.
In moments when progress feels uncertain or under threat, what keeps your hopes up?
I have my husband, Phillip, and friends that I can talk to. I also have a favorite scripture that keeps me going: though God slay me, I will trust in God. Job 13:15
How do you see younger folks carrying forward the legacy you helped build?
Don’t give up the fight. Organize, organize, organize!
The launch of Flag50 looks ahead to the 50th anniversary of the rainbow flag. What do you think folks should be reflecting on as that milestone approaches?
I love the Pride flag! It gives us hope that there can be a tomorrow. I love the colors and what they represent. Hopefully, we will be able to teach this in our schools one day, along with the American flag and how each of those colors is meant to give us dignity, as well as hope.
How do art and public installations like this one shape cultural change in ways that perhaps policy can’t?
Laws are important because they protect us, but art touches the heart first. A public installation like the Steps of Liberation tells our story without anyone having to say a word. A young person can walk up those steps and realize they are not alone. Families can see our colors and remember that LGBTQ people are part of every community in America. Art creates visibility, and visibility changes hearts and minds. Sometimes culture changes before politics catches up. I believe symbols matter. The rainbow flag matters. These steps matter. They remind us that liberation is not just something you read about in history books. It is something we continue to live every day.
What threats facing our LGBTQ community today concern you more than others?
I worry when people try to erase us, especially our transgender brothers and sisters and LGBTQ young people. I have lived long enough to know that fear and hatred can grow when people stop seeing each other as human beings. We cannot go backward. I also worry when people become discouraged and think their voice no longer matters. That is exactly when we must organize, vote, speak out, and stand together. We have survived attacks before, and we will survive them again, but only if we refuse to be silent. Silence has never protected our community. Courage and love have.
What does it mean to you to take that next step, and how would you advise our readers to take it?
Every generation has its own next step to take. For some, it means coming out. For others, it means speaking up when someone is being mistreated. It may mean marching, voting, creating art, serving your community, or simply learning to love yourself exactly as God made you. The important thing is not to stand still. Keep moving forward. Keep believing that change is possible. I have spent my whole life taking one step after another with people who dreamed of a better world. My advice is simple: do not wait for someone else to do the work. Take the next step yourself, and bring somebody with you.
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
JR.’s hosts meet & greet for mayoral candidate Janeese Lewis George
Campaign to support Va. marriage amendment repeal launched
Why Michelle Visage needs you to get ‘PrEP Wise’
White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting
Nine Russian LGBTQ groups deemed ‘extremist’ banned
‘The Stranger’ queers an existentialist classic
Ghanaian lawmakers approve anti-LGBTQ bill
Time travelers from the AIDS era
